Bookmark Message

When will Indian scientists unbolt?

At a recent gathering in Bengaluru, science journalists from around the country bemoaned that Indian scientists, professors and academicians are lousy communicators and criticised them for their general unwillingness to interact with journalists. The fact that their foreign counterparts, especially those from countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, always respond to us promptly makes this shortcoming all the more glaring.

The individual scientist is not the only defaulter. The style of functioning of the very system that breeds them engenders such behaviour. For example, a few months back I picked up a study published in Current Science on how ancient Indians inadvertently consumed a diet rich in prebiotics—non-digestible food ingredients that nurture bacteria in the human gut. I called up the National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology in Bengaluru, the institute where the study was carried out, to touch base with the lead author. Several phone calls went unanswered. Then I emailed the author at the address given in the paper; I continued to write the story and interview other experts in the meantime. From the moment of sighting the paper to completing the story, I took around two and a half days—a little more than what a newspaper reporter would have taken. Replying after three days, he said he will seek his director’s permission and talk to me if it is granted. I had already completed my story without his input. In a redundant mail he shot me after a lapse of another week, he said he had the permission and was finally willing to talk. The article had gone to the press by this time. The procedure which requires a scientist to procure the director’s permission before speaking to the media makes the job very difficult for reporters, especially those working with news dailies. Yes, the scientists are busy. Yes, they’re out on field trips a number of times and don’t have access to phone and email. But this is true of their US and UK counterparts, too, yet one finds them willing to reply.

Permission curse

At the meeting in Bengaluru, science reporters from the Telegraph, which widely covers science, lamented this makes it hard for newspapers to 'break' news on important Indian studies. Get the idea where the complaint of “Indian science not being adequately covered in the media” emanates from? This system, to my knowledge, doesn’t exist in any other country. Never has a foreign scientist written back to me saying he will comment only after the top brass in his institution approve such a request.

For the cover story on antibiotic resistance, which appeared in the October 15 issue of Down To Earth, I approached the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Research in Punjab to ask if they had been working on any new kind of antibiotic. They were, but the same permission curse disallowed any discourse between the concerned scientist and I in the time I was allotted to look for the information. One can’t keep waiting for comments, can one?

This is not the only bottleneck. Even when the permission curse is not involved, Indian professors take their own sweet time to answer a reporter’s queries. If the world was not flat, most of us would not crib about it and move on thinking “Indian scientists are really busy, so I’d be lucky to hear from them”. But as a journalist who regularly communicates (over email and phone) with top researchers in elite universities like Harvard, Yale, and Oxford, I’m not buying the Indian-scientists-are-busy argument. What are they busy doing?

Numbers prove it

Recently, a team of students from Manipal University in Karnataka and Amity University in Noida decided to put a real figure to this predicament. They sent out 177 emails to researchers of 16 top scientific institutes in the country. To add some spice (and perspective) to the mix, they shot a batch of another 233 emails to the top foreign universities. In a typical email, they sought an opportunity for a research internship at the scientist’s facility. The authors wrote in Current Science’s latest issue, “The promptness and regularity of professors in responding to emails are significant factors for improved professor–student social relationship and teaching/research outcomes.”

Here’s the not-so-surprising part: only 16.38 per cent professors from Indian universities bothered to reply. Western researchers fared much better with a response rate of 36.48 per cent.

While IIT-Bombay was among the institutes that responded encouragingly, pioneer institutes like the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), IIT-Guwahati, IIT-Delhi and Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology settled at woefully low positions on the response index. In fact, some of the emails to AIIMS bounced, pointing to lethargy on the part of both the addressee and the IT department of the institute.

Even though the experiment was not conducted by media persons and the nature of emails not similar to media queries, I’m confident the data is suggestive of the great barrier between the scientist and the journalist. Here’s the rather surprising part: when the authors wrote to the same institutions with a commercial interest, they found their inboxes flooded. They write: “We sent queries (n = 28) regarding registrations and travel grants to organisers of conferences; we received prompt replies from all in the West and 66.67 per cent from India.” Maybe Indian researchers just aren’t bothered with the dissemination of science?

Now before I’m taken for a serial whiner, I’d like to add a bit of perspective. I’ve visited research labs across Delhi, Lucknow and Bengaluru, and every scientist has had at least one horror story to recount of how she was either misquoted or facts of her research presented wrongly by a reporter. Point taken; we get it wrong sometimes, and the education (or a lack of it) of journalists covering science is another issue in itself.

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

Besides whole of the debate

Besides whole of the debate happened over the paper, I feel that the statement by Sachan Dinsa 'But thatÃ”Ã‡Ã–s no excuse for not answering emails.' is what we have to believe in and work on... Debating won't help the India's most potent scientific society... Let's get back to our inbox and share ideas to have upgrade our impact factors.. Join the Movement... Thanks dinsa and current science authors !!

Your experience is exactly the same of ours.associated with science reporting Equally or more strange is the attitude displayed by our top fund-giving bodies of science, CSIR or DST. While the outreach platform of the DST is approachable and their response to queries are prompt and courteous, the central bodies of both CSIR and DST are notoriously impervious to any enquiry. Silence is almost invariably their only response.

Indeed a well written and nicely researched piece on a subject of paramount importance. In my opinion, this is not just the unwillingness of Indian scientists that is affecting science journalism, there's also a lack of required knowledge, writing n communication skills in the academic fraternity n scientists of the country. We are much much less organized n focused than the west. The irony is that, we just don't want to improve despite having many iconic examples.

I heartily appreciate the ideas put forth in this article and sincerely hope that, the potential views will reach to all concerned.

Well written piece. But it's the Indian S&T system that's responsible for this and not individuals. The institutions including top level ones are still somewhat feudalistic with hierarchial structures that stifle any creativity and independance of scientists. This leads to insulation and lack of accountability / transparancy. This breeds mediocrity and in turn lack of self esteem, willingness to share etc. But many of the forign institutions also suffer from similar lapses, may be to a lesser degree. There's probably a greater proportion of independant scientists who become more visible/vocal giving an impression that they're more open

I manage science communication at CSIR-National Chemical Laboratory, Pune for the last eight years and facilitate interaction between the reporters (scribes) of newspapers, magazines and other media and our scientists. I personally prefer email mode to avoid getting misquoted. It is a fact that scientist fear being misquoted and it can be due to lack of training or the particular reporter not doing the required background study for the story. In my opinion, science scribes need to strike a balance between urgency of the story and its comprehensiveness with factual information. Generally, science reporting is not seen with that urgency (priority?) by the bureau chiefs and the editors compared to politics, finance, sports, etc. At CSIR-NCL the queries from journalists are attended on priority. For CSIR-NCL related story, I arrange meetings with concerned scientists on request on a mutually agreed date and time. After the meeting, I suggest to send us the draft of prepared story, and if required with additional questions he/she may feel necessary to be addressed for the whole story. Many a times, I also helped reporters in identifying appropriate scientists who can give comments on a particular piece of work.

I seem to agree with every bit of your article. Especially the last paragraph. We went through a similar case where our scientific report and the article which had appeared on a news daily (despite sending the report from our side promptly) that was extremely contrasting and misleading. I had written to the editor of that news daily to make corrections which still hasn't appeared on paper yet! All the research that happen becomes useless totally due to misleading articles. We are forced to begin from scratch again.